Bill Overview
Title: Safe Access to Cash Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a new federal statutory framework to govern robbery offenses involving ATMs and related conduct. Currently, the federal bank robbery statute makes it a federal crime to take or attempt to take by force and violence or by intimidation, money or other property from any bank, credit union, or savings and loan association. A violation is punishable by a statutory maximum prison term of 20 years (or 25 years, if the offense includes assault or use of a dangerous weapon). However, federal circuit courts have split on whether forcing someone to withdraw money from an ATM qualifies as an offense under the federal bank robbery statute. In United States v. Chavez, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the bank customer, rather than the bank, had possession of the funds when the robbery occurred, so a necessary element of the federal bank robbery statute--that the money belonged to the bank--was not satisfied. In contrast, the Tenth, Seventh, and Fourth Circuits have held that directly forcing a bank customer to withdraw money from an ATM constitutes a federal bank robbery because the funds belonged to the bank when the withdrawal occurred. This bill establishes new statutory criminal offenses for ATM robbery and related offenses such as ATM theft. A violation is subject to the same criminal penalties as an offense under the federal bank robbery statute--a statutory maximum prison term of 20 years (or 25 years, if the offense includes assault or use of a dangerous weapon).
Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who use ATMs and are potential victims of ATM-related crimes
Estimated Size: 315000000
- The act directly relates to ATM robbery and associated criminal activities, which might impact anyone who uses ATMs.
- ATMs are globally used for cash withdrawal, so potential victims of ATM-related robberies include a substantial portion of the global population with ATM access.
- ATM operators and financial institutions may need to modify or enhance security measures, indirectly impacting everyone who uses banking services.
- The changes in federal offenses could lead to minor increased federal prosecution rates, especially in districts where legal interpretations previously differed.
- The potential criminal population engaging in ATM-related robberies would face more severe penalties, deterring some individuals and affecting them and their families.
Reasoning
- The policy affects a wide range of people, primarily those who use ATMs, either frequently or infrequently, as everyone is a potential victim of ATM robbery.
- The Safe Access to Cash Act of 2022 clearly defines ATM robbery as a federal crime, which may deter criminals due to the enhanced legal consequences.
- The policy might indirectly affect people who do not use ATMs by improving overall public safety and altering crime statistics, thus affecting community wellbeing.
- Since ATM robberies might be prevalent in specific areas, people in high-crime neighborhoods or urban environments could experience a greater impact from the policy.
- Many people in the U.S. use ATMs regularly, but only a fraction are directly affected by ATM-related crimes, hence the policy will have varying impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Office Manager (New York City, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time that ATM-related crimes are taken seriously as federal offenses.
- I feel a bit safer knowing that criminals might be deterred by this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having been robbed once, this policy gives me some reassurance.
- I'm glad these crimes will be taken more seriously.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Bank Teller (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good that there's more focus on legal consequences for ATM crimes.
- Operations might be smoother with more serious ramifications for crimes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Security Consultant (Dallas, TX)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's wise to have a well-defined legal framework.
- This policy aligns with efforts to improve security at ATMs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelancer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't use ATMs much, but I'm glad such crimes are more strongly deterred.
- It's good for community safety in general.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Delivery Driver (Queens, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will make using ATMs at night feel slightly safer.
- Any deterrent to crime is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that makes my surroundings safer is welcome.
- It's reassuring to know these crimes are being addressed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Bank Manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will aid in reducing ATM-related financial losses.
- It's a step forward in financial security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Waitress (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad these robberies are being taken more seriously.
- It makes me feel a little safer using cash.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies enhancing safety are generally good.
- I feel a bit more secure knowing the laws have teeth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $22000000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- Cooperation with state and local justice systems is essential for effective implementation.
- Potential gap periods before banks and law enforcement fully adapt to new legal structures.
- Monitoring the efficacy of the law in deterring ATM-related robberies over time.